- The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC or Court),in the case of Satye Singh & Anr v State of Uttarakhand observed that if the prosecution fails to prove the prima facie facts against the accused, then burden of proof cannot be placed on the accused under the cloak of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act).
- Acquitting the accused from the charges of murder, the two judge Bench observed that the prosecution cannot be relieved from its duty to prove the guilt of the murder by pressing into service the provisions contained under Section 106.
- The High Court (HC) had dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the District & Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal for offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his wife.
- Placing reliance under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, prosecution for the State argued that the accused failed to give any explanation regarding the whereabouts of the deceased the night of the murder when she went missing and also alleged that the accused tried to mislead the Investigating Officer.
- The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the prosecution failed to submit any cogent evidence to prove the charges levelled against the appellants and they were being wrongly targeted given their relationship with the deceased.
- Based on the evidence placed before it and the finding of the doctor who had examined by the deceased’s body, Court observed that there was no shadow of doubt it was homicidal death. The Court also remarked that the entire investigation was conducted in a very cursory and shoddy manner.
- The Court also observed that despite there being evidence that the deceased was harassed by the accused, no charge was framed against the latter under section 498A of IPC by the Trial Court.
- The Court noted that the entire case of prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness to the alleged incident and remarked that it is a settled position of law that circumstances howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Countering the argument put forth by the prosecution and relying on SC decision in the case of Shambu Nath Mehra v State of Ajmer, the Court remarked that Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused. The general rule in a criminal case is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
- In view of the matter that no compelling evidence or witness was produced against the accused, the Court set aside the impugned judgments of the earlier Courts and directed the accused to be set free.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
